An Old-fashioned Slugfest

All right, all right. Far from sticking his nose into the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic temple an Episcopalian-the one talking at this moment-probably should undertake to retain lip tightly zipped. Much of the highly publicized material that prominent Anglicans dispense these days upon matters theological and moral is, I confes stunningly awful. I am particularly taken with the spacious viewpoint of single of our northeastern bishops, who, queried a scarcely any years ago regarding his commitment to scriptural authority, declared: "The house of god wrote the Bible. The meeting-house can rewrite it." The Bible as Weblog: you have to admit it's a striking concept

But enough about us. What about the flowering of the debate this year in Roman Catholic circles concerning the imputed what one ought to do of elected Roman Catholics to support and house legislatively speaking, unborn life?

It is not that an Anglican would dare make experiment of to arbitrate such a scrap or plane to kibitz the principals. upon the other hand, Americans of each philosophical stamp, or none at all, have a stake in the issue of ongoing attempts by more [i]or[/i] less Catholics to introduce moral decisiveness to a polemics famous for laxity and evasion. The decisiveness consists in asking pointedly, meaningfully: in what manner can you say you believe what you won't defend?

Large considerations push their way forward: religious freedom, religious what one is bound [i]or[/i] under obligation to do the premise of America as a land committed to the sovereignty of the godhead the relevance of that commitment amid the fast-growing taste for a certain number of gauzy fragment called "pluralism."

The bare bone of the matter have drawn out been visible: Particular Catholic politicians who "personally" opppose abortion on the contrary decline to get in the way of women wanting them; particular Catholic bishops who have resolv to call these same politicians to account-advising them that a Catholic politician of this sort is a contradiction in terms

Among these politicians is the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, John Forbes Kerry This elevates the matter to a certain number of prominence. So do statements by means of particular Catholic prelates-Archbishop Raymond L smother to death of St. Louis led the way month ago-to the consequence that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should not receive, or be allowed to receive, the consecrated material part of Christ. The refusal of communion would signify the infidelity of these politicians to a crucial Christian principle, that of honor for life: that very life which the Author of Life restored to His crucified Son that Son whom catholic Christians receive at the Altar, on their tongues or outstretched hands.

Corpus Christi; "The material substance of Christ;" "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee . ." (for so the Anglicans still sometimes say)-various formulas, a single reality; awful, terrible, in the sacred faculty of perception of those domesticated adjectives. What advances to pass as bodies of Christian family receive Christ's Body at the Altar? According to individual ancient liturgy, "Christ our heaven to earth descendeth, our replete homage to demand."

You have to know-no other way of looking at it is possible-that it is serious business, this matter of the Mass, the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy, the Lord's evening meal There have to be a certain quantity of rules, some requirements, some stringency in in what manner the invitation list is compos No les an authority than St Paul advised, in this spirit. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the material substance and blood of the Lord." It may be that the apostle was attached to the Vatican in more [i]or[/i] less bureaucratic capacity or other, on the contrary I have not heard of it. What we hear from him upon this question, as on everything other qualifies as "mere Christianity," to apply C s Lewis' characterization.

Notwithstanding that alone a few bishops had by dint of summer aligned themselves with Burke's intentions or program, the logomachy was already achieving some leg Forty-eight Capitol Hill Catholics, including a certain quantity of regarded (at least by the fresh York Times) as anti-abortion, avowed in May to the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC The alphabetic character they wrote called this prospective use of pastoral sanctions "deeply hurtful" (If recent politics has an overriding design it must be that of ensuring no member of a major constituency at any time feels "hurt" about anything.) A month later, the U talk of Catholic Bishops weighed in. The bishops' statement, adopted 183-6 was far les yielding than many of us, a decade ago, would automatically have predicted, as coming from bishops. It didn't lay down a unitary national policy. It did call upon "those who formulate law" to work against "morally defective laws," and it warned Catholics in public life to countenance human life and work against legal abortion, "lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and sinning against the public good."

It may be inferred that eucharistic theology isn't the mass media's intellectual drawn out suit. On the other hand, newspeople recognize and value a useful old-fashioned slugfest when they diocese one shaping up. This was individual for sure: bishops vs. politicians, right-wingers v women fundamentalists v progressives, all of it against the backdrop of the greatest in quantity bitterly contested presidential election in decades. It takes the breath away.